[LTP] [PATCH] syscalls: kill: Remove kill07

[Li Wang]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 10:45 PM Ricardo B. Marlière <rbm@suse.com> wrote:

> On Mon Jun 16, 2025 at 11:18 AM -03, Li Wang wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 10:09 PM Ricardo B. Marlière <rbm@suse.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon Jun 16, 2025 at 11:08 AM -03, Li Wang wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 7:02 PM Ricardo B. Marlière <rbm@suse.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed Jun 11, 2025 at 10:52 PM -03, Li Wang wrote:
> >> >> > Ricardo B. Marlière via ltp <ltp@lists.linux.it> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > From: Ricardo B. Marlière <rbm@suse.com>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The test case description reads:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Test case to check that SIGKILL can not be caught."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It makes use of sigaction() to set up a handler for SIGKILL, but
> >> >> >> according to its manual page:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "EINVAL An invalid signal was specified.  This will also be
> generated
> >> >> if an
> >> >> >> attempt is made to change the action for SIGKILL or SIGSTOP, which
> >> >> cannot
> >> >> >> be caught or ignored."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Or could we refactor kill07 to validate the EINVAL when changing
> >> action
> >> >> on
> >> >> > SIGKILL/SIGSTOP?
> >> >>
> >> >> But then we would be testing sigaction(). Could you please elaborate?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > You're right, if we test sigaction(), then the code should be put into
> >> > kernel/syscalls/sigaction/sigaction03.c.
> >> >
> >> > Maybe we can try:
> >>
> >> Sure! But in any case kill07 should still be removed IMHO.
> >>
> >
> > Agreed. If you plan to add sigaction03.c separately, this one should be
> > good.
>
> I think this is already covered in sigaction02.c:
>
>
> https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/blob/7651bb22d715558c8a6d8732ef982e2146050b10/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sigaction/sigaction02.c#L29


Oh, yes, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for pointing that out.
This patch merged!

-- 
Regards,
Li Wang